Were All Old New Cars This Bad?

[Restorer32]

We occasionally have customers who remark that they didn't remember cars overheating/using oil/ dead batteries when the cars were new back in the day. I gently remind them that back then when you stopped for gas, in the gas island there would invariably be a case of oil, a big can of water and a battery tester and battery water and an air hose. These are indeed the "good old days".

[Larry Schramm]

I can remember as a kid traveling the Penn Turnpike and going up many of the grades going into the tunnels cars would be lined up that had overheated. Almost never see that now.

Also I remember that if you wanted to keep a car that would not have any problems overheating you would order one with heavy duty/ trailer cooling.

[Restorer32]

Back in the day you would also see tractor trailer rigs being driven up those long hills on the PA Turnpike at about 5 mph with the drivers holding the doors open to escape the brutal heat or sometimes even standing out on the runningboards if the truck had a hand throttle. Hood sides were often left home during the hotter months. And those runaway truck ramps were there for a reason. Dad drove a 1948 or so gas engined Brockway and I still remember seeing the exhaust manifold glow red on those long hills the few times I accompanied him on a trip.

[Guest Hinckley]

It would seem passions have been stirred with this thread. In my opinion the newer cars are far superior to anything built in the past. However, it is an apples to orange type of comparison.

In the days of plugs and points a vehicle properly maintained would seldom just roll over and die without warning. Todays vehicles require less time under the hood and provide more trouble free miles than a vehicle built before 1970 but the component failures that do occur are far more costly.

Recalls and defects are as much a part of automotive history as the Model T itself. The first major recall was the air cooled Chevy of 1922.

Restored vehicles are often better than new because issues have been dealt with.

So, I suppose it depends on your vehicle needs, what your budget allows for, how mechanically talented you are, and how much you enjoy getting greasy.

I intend to find a 1931 Ford p.u. for use as a daily driver. First, I live in Arizona. Second, I live 2.5 miles from work. Third, my camping/hunting spot is 15 miles away and fourth, the hardware store is 2 miles.

Parts are plentiful, parts are reasonable, and I can do most repairs myself. For me the Model A would be practical transportation. If my commute was thirty or more miles in modern traffic then the Model A would only be a wise chose as a recreational vehicle and or as a hobby.

I generally run with one foot in both eras. For the past 27 years my wife and I have had one long distance traveler as well as something vintage for local use. On occasion both vehicles were old enough to be considered classics.

A few years ago our long distance vehicle was a 1973 Olds, purchased for $350.00, twelve years previously and the "town" driver was a battered bone stock '51 Chevy p.u.

Our current stable consists of a 1968 Dodge truck and a 1998 Jeep Cherokee. In all honesty the Jeep is one of the most versatile, most dependable, and most trouble free vehicle ever owned.

[LINC400]

It depends on what cars you are talking about. A new Cadillac should be more reliable than a Ford Model T. But by the mid to late 1970's, most American cars should be just as reliable, safe, etc. as anything on the road now. And again depending on what it is, they can be older than mid-70's and still be well built reliable transportation.

All I can say is friends, co-workers, relatives have all had new cars, and they are in for warranty issues and repairs far more than any of my cars have been in for repairs. And mine are 16-34 years old, so they are allowed to have something wear out or break now and then.

Thanks to "unreliable, poorly assembled" 1970's cars, my mortgage will be paid off several years early. Then I can start saving for early retirement. I'd rather do that than spend all my money on payments and then sit in the waiting area waiting for my uninteresting automotive appliance to be fixed under warranty.

As an added side note, I try to buy OEM or other quality parts whenever I have my car repaired. Yet the parts that have already been replaced fail at a much quicker rate than the original parts on the car. I frequently have had to replace something 2 years after replacing the original part that lasted 20-30 years. So if parts on the new cars are of this type of quality, I'm not impressed.

Edited July 19, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[Guest prs519]

sounds like an overeducated...... fill in the blanks. Most, not all, could have

been fixed by anyone in the time it took to write it down! Petty stuff mostly.

[Rusty_OToole]

There is an interesting editorial in Hot Rod magazine this month. The editor talks about his first project car, a 60s Camaro that needed a rebuilt engine, trans, bodywork, paint job etc. even though it was only 12 years old. That was a typical hot rod project of the day.

Today if you were looking at a 12 year old Camaro and the air conditioning didn't work you would pass it by for a better one. It's routine for cars to be functioning perfectly at an age when cars of the fifties and sixties would be shot.

[LINC400]

There is an interesting editorial in Hot Rod magazine this month. The editor talks about his first project car, a 60s Camaro that needed a rebuilt engine, trans, bodywork, paint job etc. even though it was only 12 years old. That was a typical hot rod project of the day.

Today if you were looking at a 12 year old Camaro and the air conditioning didn't work you would pass it by for a better one. It's routine for cars to be functioning perfectly at an age when cars of the fifties and sixties would be shot.

Depends on how you take care of it. In 1996 my 1978 Lincoln with 127,000 miles on it was hit and totaled. The car was repairable, but with $3,000 in damage was considered totaled. I went looking for a newer car to replace it as it was my daily driver. I could not believe that cars that were less than 5 years old with less than 50,000 miles had filthy interiors all worn out with pieces cracked and missing, ran like crap, all kinds of stuff not working, body all scratched, dented, etc. cracked windows, and they were asking more for them than the $3,000 for my car that looked like it rolled off the showroom floor compared to these junks. Ended up replacing it with a 1979 Lincoln that was in much better shape than all the newer junks and cheaper.

Same deal when I decided to retire the 1979 Lincoln from daily use and went looking for a daily driver. And again same deal when I replaced the 1988 Town Car. People can't believe my current car is a 1994 because it is so clean compared to theirs which are usually 10-15 years newer.

Even when I took my VCR in for repair in the late 1990's, the guy said "It's a 1988? wow, it's so clean" What do people do to trash a VCR?

And as far as an engine rebuild, I can't even count the number of stories I've herad about someone giving the neighbor, teenager, relative, etc. a perfectly fine running car that then blew the engine because they didn't bother checking the oil. That is not a quality problem. That is a stupidity problem.

Edited July 24, 2010 by LINC400 (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

I work for a shop that installs stereos,alarms and window tint and you would not believe the less then 10 year old junk that comes in to have this stuff installed. Windows that wont work along with it barely running and hardly no brakes and to top it off about every warning light in the dash on,then you have the interior thats trashed and alot of broken plastic parts and after seing this I wont but a newer vehicle as where would one find a decent used car these days.

[Rusty_OToole]

I work for a shop that installs stereos,alarms and window tint and you would not believe the less then 10 year old junk that comes in to have this stuff installed. Windows that wont work along with it barely running and hardly no brakes and to top it off about every warning light in the dash on,then you have the interior thats trashed and alot of broken plastic parts and after seing this I wont but a newer vehicle as where would one find a decent used car these days.

Ha ha ha and these heaps are coming in for stereos and window tint?

I guess it makes sense, why get it fixed when you can soup up the radio and you won't hear the car falling apart ha ha ha.

[rhb1999]

I agree with LINC 400, it depends on how a car is taken care of. There have always been people who just drive their cars, and the only thing they do to it is put gas in it. That's why the junkyards have cars in them, even later models. As regards the '53 Dodge, it's 57 years old and it's been "sitting"?(has it been driven any in that time and maintained?) for 45 years. On the other hand, the use of non-detergent motor oil which was supposed to keep sludge suspended, could gunk up an engine, made worse when people would put in detergent oil and possbily loosen up the sludge and clog things up.

Edited July 24, 2010 by rhb1999
additional information (see edit history)

[Guest windjamer]

I just have to chime in here. I learned to drive on a 39 Ford, took my test in a mid 40 taxi,owned and drove several mid 30 cars. No they can not compair to my Park ave ultra, but they where pretty darn good in there day. I venture to guess folks wont think much of todays cars 40 + years from now.

[junkyardjeff]

As soon as it leaves the buy here pay here lot they bring them in for the big stereo systems and tint and if they have enough money a alarm goes in too,you would not believe how many come in with non working windows and want tint put on them. Dayton Ohio is full of people who dont know what their priorities are.

[rons49]

Take a look a Consumer Reports in the mid 60s -@ 1980. The average US car had about 30 defects. Some manufacturers were better then others. To save my own mental anguish, I won't single out any brand. That does not include rust perforation in 2-3 years. The British cars were worse. Again some more then others. The Japanese cars really were bad until the mid 70s; their initial quality was ok but they could not handle the American roads, salt, high speeds. crash protection etc. But they learned. So did we. Old cars are repairable and needed to be. Todays cars are much better,safer & cheaper and require less maintance. But... heaven forbid something electronic goes wrong, labor rates now enter the factor.

[mrspeedyt]

all i can say is that the prius (bought new in 2007) has 82000 miles on it now and has had only engine oil changes (every 7000-8000 miles) and the 1999 toy tacoma went over 210,000 miles (before a burnt valve parked it) with no problems and no mechanical work at all! and american cars are now every bit as good! but they all (foreign and domestic) don't have the style and character of the old stuff.

Edited July 31, 2010 by mrspeedyt (see edit history)

[Rusty_OToole]

To get back to the original question: were all new cars this bad? It's not easy at this late date to find information on this. But it does seem quality control was not what we are used to today. Some cars were great, some weren't so hot, and some were out and out lemons.

On the whole Chrysler products were among the better built and better engineered products, but they were far from perfect.

This is the experience of a buyer of a new 1951 DeSoto Suburban, the most expensive DeSoto model.

"We bought this car from Art Frost of Glendale, California on November 30, 1951, at a very satisfactory discount from the $4278 sticker price. It was delivered in very poor condition, but I quickly decided not to rely on the warranty, unless something serious developed. Three unsatisfactory trips to their service department convinced me that “I'd rather do it myself.”

The first night we had the car, it ran low on oil, due to a porous weld in the Purolator. Fortunately, I had been watching the oil gauge, and no harm was done. Many trim parts were incompletely attached, but I found enough screws in a sack under the rear mat to complete the job. The rear shocks were not attached to the rear axle and the shipping clamps were clanking on the frame. Many other unsatisfactory items appeared for nearly three years.

Now I cite this sad situation not out of bitterness or anger, but to make a point.

I still had faith in the integrity of Chrysler Corporation engineering and instinct told me that I had a most extraordinary automobile, well worth debugging. So my “restoration” started on a brand new car less than 24 hours old. I had long preached that there's no such thing as a “lemon” - just certain parts of any new car might be citric.

Well, in spite of a doubtful start, patience and some hard work have turned this machine into the most satisfactory car imaginable. And it's been so rewarding, that I try to continue the policy of improvement whenever maintenance is required."

He wrote about his experiences after owning the car over 20 years and driving it some 180,000 miles so it couldn't be all bad.

For a balanced view of the new car buyer's experience in 1951 here is the full report.

1951 DeSoto Suburban cars - long term report / car review with trailer towing

[Guest]

all i can say is that the prius (bought new in 2007) has 82000 miles on it now and has had only engine oil changes (every 7000-8000 miles)

Sounds like you haven't replaced a battery pack yet. Priced a battery pack yet? Turning turtle is just around the corner.

Don

[Reatta Man]

Yeah, lets lay that Prius battery crap to rest once and for all, shall we?

First, the battery, all hybrid components and modules are guranteed for 8 years or 100,000 miles. If you are in CA or one of the states that uses CA rules, the warranty is 10 years or 150,000 miles.

And, if you do need a 'battery' for your hybrid, you are very unlikely to need the entire battery. They are made up of many cells, which can be replaced independently as needed.

Finally, the reports of $8,000-$11,000 batteries are wrong. Remanufactured batteries, with warranties are available right now for $1500. If you insist on buying the entire battery from Toyota, they are about $3-5,000, not the $11K that has been repeated over and over again. If you want to save even more money, the entire battery can be bought from LKQ for $262 with a 90-day warranty. And, if you don't know LKQ, they are a nationwide chain of salvage yards that have a stellar reputation for only selling first-rate parts.

Joe

[junkyardjeff]

I still would never buy one when its out of the battery warranty,even though its not as high as rumored for the battery replacements its still way to high for me. If one was to keep one of those cars way after the warranties run out I dont think you would have saved much money then if you bought a non hybrid in the first place,I hate to say this but most hybrid owners/drivers are a hazzard on the highways since they tend to drive under the speed limit and I am tempted to give them a shove up to speed when comming up on the slow pokes. Since they came out I can count on one hand the hybrids I have seen actually going over the speed limit.

Yeah, lets lay that Prius battery crap to rest once and for all, shall we?

First, the battery, all hybrid components and modules are guranteed for 8 years or 100,000 miles. If you are in CA or one of the states that uses CA rules, the warranty is 10 years or 150,000 miles.

And, if you do need a 'battery' for your hybrid, you are very unlikely to need the entire battery. They are made up of many cells, which can be replaced independently as needed.

Finally, the reports of $8,000-$11,000 batteries are wrong. Remanufactured batteries, with warranties are available right now for $1500. If you insist on buying the entire battery from Toyota, they are about $3-5,000, not the $11K that has been repeated over and over again. If you want to save even more money, the entire battery can be bought from LKQ for $262 with a 90-day warranty. And, if you don't know LKQ, they are a nationwide chain of salvage yards that have a stellar reputation for only selling first-rate parts.

Joe

[Guest CaptainGTX]

Thought I'd provide an update on my 53 Dodge Coronet convertible. Finally got it fired up a couple weeks ago. Major problems were 1) rebuilding brakes - pedal's still a little spongy; 2) cleaning fuel system - biggest challenge was dealing with the gunked up Oilite sintered bronze filter in the gas tank; 3) choosing tires - Goodyear WWW radials; and 4) rebuilding radiator. Changed spark plugs & all 13 qts oil. Kept the old dual points & original spark plug wires in place. Like I said earlier, the car still had its original shocks, so they were obviously changed, along with hoses, belt & some other small items. That was mostly it.

Thought to look on the back side of the Colorado safety inspection on the windshield & saw that it was last inspected 5/24/64 at 102,705 mi. When I bought it on 10/14/09 it showed 102,742. So it had to have been put up very shortly after the inspection and likely not driven again. Being just another old car, I'm certain it was put away "wet" and not maintained - just kept under shelter & allowed to age. As of today it has 102,750mi, so I've put a whopping 8 miles on it. Main reason being the Gyro-Torque transmission, which was supposedly the reason it was stored in the first place. It makes a prolonged ratcheting sound when upshifting and a very loud KER-THUNK when downshifting. There's supposedly a guy in the Denver area that spent his formative years repairing these trannys, so I'll track him down & have him take a look at it.

I did compare the car to the list of things wrong when new, and although the list would be much longer today, I can see that some of the items had been taken care of. Wish that was all that was wrong with the car now. From the responses, I guess my little Dodge was built no worse than most other cars produced in that era.

[Dave@Moon]

Finally, the reports of $8,000-$11,000 batteries are wrong. Remanufactured batteries, with warranties are available right now for $1500. If you insist on buying the entire battery from Toyota, they are about $3-5,000, not the $11K that has been repeated over and over again. If you want to save even more money, the entire battery can be bought from LKQ for $262 with a 90-day warranty. And, if you don't know LKQ, they are a nationwide chain of salvage yards that have a stellar reputation for only selling first-rate parts.

I might also add that the labor costs for replacing the traction battery in a Prius is all of 2.5 hours. Not only are you more likely to need a new engine rebuild or transaxle (in any car, not just a Prius), both of those are much more expensive to have done (or harder to do for the shadetree mechanic).

The best thing about hybrid cars of all types is that they are much more reliable than conventional cars. With 2 propulsion and 2 braking systems, neither one has to work as hard as in an old-fashioned car, resulting in much better reliability. For instance, the average Prius gets it's first brake job at 125,000 miles.

I still would never buy one when its out of the battery warranty,even though its not as high as rumored for the battery replacements its still way to high for me. If one was to keep one of those cars way after the warranties run out I dont think you would have saved much money then if you bought a non hybrid in the first place,I hate to say this but most hybrid owners/drivers are a hazzard on the highways since they tend to drive under the speed limit and I am tempted to give them a shove up to speed when comming up on the slow pokes. Since they came out I can count on one hand the hybrids I have seen actually going over the speed limit.

Watch video: Prius Top Speed - PriusChat Forums

Edited August 1, 2010 by Dave@Moon (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

They might be more reliable now but what happens when they are over 10 years old and alot of miles,I would bet they would be a nightmare trying to repair when they are having issues. They will break and probably break good when the get old and probably cost way more then they are worth compared to a non hybrid of the same vintage to repair,I will let all of you thinking you are doing good experiment with them before I even think about buying one as I still dont think they are worth the extra money too buy and they are not any better on the enviroment to build then a regular car plus they look goofy.

I might also add that the labor costs for replacing the traction battery in a Prius is all of 2.5 hours. Not only are you more likely to need a new engine rebuild or transaxle (in any car, not just a Prius), both of those are much more expensive to have done (or harder to do for the shadetree mechanic).

The best thing about hybrid cars of all types is that they are much more reliable than conventional cars. With 2 propulsion and 2 braking systems, neither one has to work as hard as in an old-fashioned car, resulting in much better reliability. For instance, the average Prius gets it's first brake job at 125,000 miles.

Watch video: Prius Top Speed - PriusChat Forums

[Guest]

Yeah, lets lay that Prius battery crap to rest once and for all, shall we?

First, the battery, all hybrid components and modules are guranteed for 8 years or 100,000 miles. If you are in CA or one of the states that uses CA rules, the warranty is 10 years or 150,000 miles.

And, if you do need a 'battery' for your hybrid, you are very unlikely to need the entire battery. They are made up of many cells, which can be replaced independently as needed.

Although most of us who either worked in the industry (me) or are interested in EV or HyBrid know all about the warranty on these cars. I can also say that in fleet testing, before any of our cars went to market the battery packs ( LIB ) were turning turtle from three to five years. Battery packs were changed altogether because once one started to fail another was on it's way, so it was deemed necessary to change them all to avoid vehicle down time. My own feeling is that a vehicle should either be all electric or all gas or diesel power. In Hybrid case you have other gasoline vehicles that can easily match driving cost. The down side of Hybrid is all the maintenance of a gas powered vehicle plus emission checking, and the cost of batteries and electrical components once out of warranty. If you really want to get emissions/ cost down and get super mileage the best way to go is have a engine running at a optimum rpm for emissions, turning a dynamo powering a elecrtic traction motor and eliminate battery packs altogether. I believe Honda has some engines that what is coming out the tailpipe is cleaner than what is going in with the exception of CO2 and if your going scrutinize that much further we all better not exhale.

Today's new cars initial quality is miles better, but the complexity hinders their longevity, and a Hybrid complicates it even further.

I vote for the L1 concept if I was looking long into the future.

Don

Edited August 1, 2010 by helfen (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

I think this thread will be similar to what will be said when the hybrids gets some age and miles on them,the newer non hybrids can cost a fortune to get repaired and I would hate to see the repair bill on a 10 to 15 year old hybrid that has major electrical issues.

[Rusty_OToole]

Thought I'd provide an update on my 53 Dodge Coronet convertible.As of today it has 102,750mi, so I've put a whopping 8 miles on it. Main reason being the Gyro-Torque transmission, which was supposedly the reason it was stored in the first place. It makes a prolonged ratcheting sound when upshifting and a very loud KER-THUNK when downshifting. There's supposedly a guy in the Denver area that spent his formative years repairing these trannys, so I'll track him down & have him take a look at it.

These transmissions require a certain driving technique. More or less like an automatic transmission but they require some assistance from the driver.

The Gyro-Torque drive is the same as Fluid Drive but with a torque converter in place of the fluid drive unit. This gives them a performance advantage, in fact with the torque converter and 4 speeds to work with, you can get more out of them performance wise than any other automatic of the time.

Try this and see if it helps.

Briefly here is how the Fluid Drive transmission works.

There are 3 shifter positions, High range Low range and Reverse. For High range pull the lever down, for low range push the lever up, for reverse pull the lever toward you and up.

These are the same positions as High, Second, and Reverse of a conventional column shift. There is no Low gear position.

NOTE later models had a shifter resembling an automatic quadrant. On those models the shift lever goes straight up and down except you have to pull the lever toward you when going into reverse.

To start off here is how I like to do it in my car. Put the trans in neutral, if you are not familiar with column shift neutral is between High and Low range positions. So put it in neutral and pull out the hand brake. To avoid that annoying ratcheting sound turn the handle when you pull.

Start the engine and let it warm up a minute. Step on the clutch, shift into High range, and release the clutch completely. Now release the hand brake and drive off as if it was an automatic transmission. You are now in low gear of high range.

When you get going 14 MPH or more, lift off the gas. You should hear a *click-clack* from the transmission.Once you hear this you can step on the gas again. This means it has shifted into high gear of high range which is where you do most of your driving. You do not need the clutch for this.

If you mash the pedal to the floor the trans should kick down like an automatic. At least, if you are going less than 50.

When you come to a stop, intersection or stop sign, just use the brake and leave it in gear like an automatic. When you start off it will be in low gear of high range, you have to lift off the gas and shift up again once you get going.

For slow driving, or heavy going in mud, snow, sand, or starting off on a steep grade, you can start off in Low range. This is the same as starting off in High range except of course, the position of the shift lever.

Once you get going 6 MPH you can shift into high gear of low range by lifting off the gas pedal, same as in high range.

If you wish to shift from Low range to High range, use the clutch pedal and shift like a manual trans.

To go in Reverse, likewise step on the clutch pedal and shift into reverse, then drive as if it was an automatic.

Do not slip the clutch. Use the fluid drive. You only need the clutch when shifting into gear or changing gear lever positions other than that it is like an automatic.

It is actually a pretty simple, rugged, and reliable transmission. Much the most trouble free and easy to maintain of the early efforts at automatic drive.

Edited August 1, 2010 by Rusty_OToole (see edit history)

[junkyardjeff]

I liked the fluid drive in my 50 chrysler 8 pass sedan but was a little sluggish when driving it like a automatic trans but was neat,if I had it loaded down with many passengers it was better to shift it manually.

[Dave@Moon]

If you really want to get emissions/ cost down and get super mileage the best way to go is have a engine running at a optimum rpm for emissions, turning a dynamo powering a elecrtic traction motor and eliminate battery packs altogether.

Yeah, that'll better the 63 mpg I got from my last tank (driving mainly rural 2-lanes in Indiana)! Any mid-size car with a 21.5 cu. ft. trunk should be able to do that!

BTW, all this hypothetical "just wait 'til they get old, what happens when..." rubbish is silly. They are old. A 150,000 mile hybrid is a common site these days. In most parts of the country you probably pass 10-20/day in normal driving with at least that many miles on them. They've been on the road for 10+ years now in large numbers.

And the results on them are in and clear. There hasn't been a reliable, statistically based critique of hybrids yet that didn't find them to be at least as reliable and cheap to maintain and any conventional car. All of the fears about them were unnecessary, unfounded, and are over.

Doesn't anybody out there remember "Ask the man who owns one."?:confused:

[Guest]

Yeah, that'll better the 63 mpg I got from my last tank (driving mainly rural 2-lanes in Indiana)! Any mid-size car with a 21.5 cu. ft. trunk should be able to do that!

Doesn't anybody out there remember "Ask the man who owns one."?:confused:

Tested L1's are in the 160-170 MPG, making a four seater with luggage capacity might drop it to 100 MPG.

Dosen't anybody out there remember " Ask the people who have been trained and worked on them"?

Don